Life in prison is certainly a lot better than dying in the streets.

If you support the churches' success in rehab, you could ask the government to give them the money required to continue their programs. As it is, there are moves afoot to tax the churches out of existence and remove chaplains from our schools.

Since the rise of Greenpeace around 1970, we have seen a steady shift in the following directions:

. Atheism
. Drugs/Alcohol Problems
. Decline of Marriage and the Family
. Humanisation of Animals
. Animalisation of Humans
. Moves Towards a Peasant Diet
. Decline in Wages and Working Conditions
. Empowerment of Minority Groups

At the same time that Australians are starving and freezing in the streets in increasing numbers, scientists are now storing 50,000 knitted body suits donated for the Little Penguin, with 2500 more being received every week.

Legalising illicit drugs is a pro-death policy supported by the Greens. We know that taking just one pill can kill a teenager at a party. However, the leading cause of death amongst the young is suicide following a relationship breakdown. (The Greens also support screwing everyone.)

I have no link regarding truck drivers, but the TWU representative said that truckies have to do a 14 hour job with only 30 minutes leeway before taking on the next job. If they don't make the deadline, they will miss out on the next job and miss out on a day's pay.

A truck driver now has to work 50 hours to earn the same amount of money he used to get for 40 hours work, which is common to many other occupations, including some working in the Finance Industry.

I had another look and found the following links regarding the truckies:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3500199.htm?site=melbourne

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3499843.htm

http://www.thecourier.com.au/news/local/news/general/truckies-protest-at-coles/2552497.aspx

Dear Lorikeet,

Personally, I would prefer dying in the streets over being imprisoned (God forbid ever facing such terrible choice). Perhaps it's a matter of personal taste, that's mine anyway, like the sparrow's and as Hillel's golden rule says, "what you hate being done to you, don't do unto others".

I don't think it's a good idea for churches to accept money from governments: governments are secular organizations, mostly controlled by ungodly people. Should churches receive money from them, the churches would inevitably become indebted and stray from serving God alone. One cannot serve two masters! Instead, let taxes be reduced, so individuals can spare more money for charity, giving freely.

Not much you can do about the Greenies other than simply not vote for them. I don't!

Undoubtedly drugs are bad, but I believe that decriminalising them will reduce their usage, rather than increase it, hence less people will die, not more. In any case, it should still be illegal to drive under their influence.

I looked through your references, thanks, and nowhere did it say that drivers were forced to take drugs.

That drivers are treated badly is a separate issue (worthy of attention, but not right here), but the facts that I read on the links you provided are that no one forced drugs on them. Perhaps some stupid truck-drivers were foolish and/or greedy enough to take amphetamines in order to squeeze in another shift, working 50 hours instead of 40, not taking a Sabbath off and placing the public in grave danger due to their fatigue. Does the tightening of their belt, right or wrong, indeed justify their drug-taking, with all associated costs, direct and indirect, to themselves, their families and to others? My answer is clearly NO.

Coles/Woolworths may be responsible for one evil, but that does not justify a second evil, this time acted by certain irresponsible truck-drivers.

I think staying awake for 14 hours straight, at any time of the day or night, would be quite a challenge. If truck drivers fall asleep, accidents happen and even more innocent people die.

Truck drivers also have families to feed. I don't believe they can afford to miss a shift.

I agree with the idea that lower taxation rates (and a better performing economy) would place more people in a position to give to charities. They are certainly suffering at the moment due to low levels of donations and the government not providing sufficient income support to the unemployed, or affordable housing.

These are just some of the problems which underpin the crushing emotional depression which leads to drug abuse.

At any given time, at least 30% of the adult population is taking prescribed antidepressant medications. When combined with alcohol or the operation of machinery (including motor vehicles), they can cause great harm to the community in the form of accidents and the commission of criminal offences. These also rack up more taxpayer costs.

It is not taxation that reduces donations to charity in Australia; we are not like Americans who like inequality and tolerate incredibly rich people in the mistaken belief that anyone can be that rich.

I think that Australians are more tolerant of 'bad' (sad or mad?) behaviour as many of us are the descendants of people who couldn't abide by the laws in 17th century England and consequently were transported to Australia as convicts for stealing a loaf of bread!

There was no taxation of the rich people in England at that time; the owners of the mills, the mines and the factories that employed children, were free to donate any amount of their profits to help the workers who were also the poor; these rich untaxed people didn't even pay enough for their workers to survive on; much like the Walmart employees who apparently don't earn enough to pay for private health care.

The fact is that very few of these rich people donated anything to the poor. What has changed about the type of people who make lots of money and love money? Why would they freely begin to donate if they had more money?

The other thing about Australians that I thought was true, was that we don't like to take charity. When a benefit is paid by the government, with an understanding that the benefit is to allow the person to participate in the activities of their community, the recipient of the government benefit can have some pride in themselves and begin to recover their self-respect.

Lorikeet, I know for a fact that magic mushrooms only grow in cow poop, and there were no cows in their country so I'm pretty sure that the Australian Aborigines didn't use them. There is evidence that they smoked some type of flora that didn't provide much of a high; as they certainly prefer our western drugs now.

The South American Indians did use magic mushroom and other psychedelics drugs. There is a great many differences between the 'drugs' that are in use and an awful lot of myths and misunderstandings because 'we' - meaning the researchers in the area - don't have all the answers yet.

Yuyitsu Jewish people have the Jewish mother as their secret weapon; she uses on the rich and vibrant heritage, the stories and mythgs that the Jewish tribe have maintained and handed on down the centuries, to build the child's self-esteem, to provide them with an understanding that they are important and that they are part of the scheme of things.

We European Westerners, do nothing like that for our children; we tell them that they need to succeed in a career and the measure of that success is their income and number of possessions. If this is the measure than some are bound to fail.